Another instance of ritual dkcrepancy is found in the description of the priestly dues. In Dt 18'' the sacrificing priest received as his share ' the shoulder, two cheeks, and maw ' ; in Lv 7"-*' ' the wave-breast ' and ' heave-thigh ' or shoulder are assigned to the priest.
Added to this, there is the argument from silence, in that Dt makes no mention of the year of jubilee, the great Day of Atonement, the Levitical cities, the meal-offenng, guilt-ottering, or sin-ofl'ering, nor even of the tent of meeting (Dt 31'*'- is from JE).
And it is incredible to suppose that the Levitical system, if formulated as we have it in P, should have been so wholly overlooked in an address to the people.
It is impossible to resist the impression that the law of Dt represents an expansion and develop- ment of tlie ancient code contained in Ex 20-23, and precedes the final formulation of the priestly ritual, which only received its ultimate form in the last period of revising the structure of the Pentateucn.
In order to approach more nearly the limits of time within which it is reasonable to suppose that Dt was composed, we may take into consideration the further possible indications of time, and judge of them not as individually convincing items of evidence, but as collectively carrying considerable weight.
(a) It was written on the W. side of the Jordan ; cf. the use of ' beyond Jordan ' in Dt !'■ • 3' 441. 46. «. 4», as in Jos 2>» 7' etc. See Beyond.
(6) The law of the kingdom, 17""*", is expressed in language indicating acquaintance with the evils of Solomon's rei^.
(c) The law of the judicial tribunal in l?''** does not ordain a new institution, but describes a court already existing, and having a close resemblance to the one described in 2 Ch 19*- " as appointed by Jehoshaphat.
(d) Isaiah, who speaks of the erection of an ' obelisk ' (mazzcbdh) for a sacred purpose in con- nexion with tiie worship of J" in Egypt, could hardly have been acquainted with the law of Dt 16^ 'Thou shalt not set thee up an obelisk, which J" thy God hateth.'
(e) Dt refers to the worship of 'the host of heaven ' as a dangerous form of idolatry (4" 17'). We do not find in the historical books any men- tion of this superstition being a source of reli- gions temptation until the days of Ahaz ; see 2 K 23".
(^ The style of Jeremiah's writing shows abund- ant traces 01 the influence of Dt.
If we may take these hints together, we arrive at the probability of Dt having been composed during the period which intervenes between the accession of Ahaz and the literary activity of Jeremiah.
A terminus ad quern for the composition of Dt is supplied by the discovery of ' the book of the law ' in the 18th year of the reign of Josiah (B.C. 621). There can be no manner of doubt that this book corresponded to a work practically identical with the main portion of Dt (5-26. 28). This work contained denunciations and curses, such as are found in Dt 28 (cf. 2 K 22"- "• '») ; it contained mention of the covenant with J", with clear reference to Dt 28»» (cf. 2 K 23- » ^). The reforms instituted by Josiah are such as would be required by conformity with the law of Dt, es^iecially in regard to the centralization of wor- ship, 2K 23'- •; the prohibition of the worship of the heavenly bodies, 2 K 23''- '■ " ; the prohibition of the high-places, obelLsks, Ash^rim, etc., 2 K 23* ». 14. 16 J tije prohibition of religious prostitutes, 2 K 23' ; the maintenance of the priests ejected from the local shrines, 2 K 23'- " ; the prohibition of Molecli worship, 2 K 23" ; the celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem ' as it is written in this book of the covenant,' 2 K 23""^ ; the ejection of diviners and consulters with familiar spirits, 2 K 23«.
The finding of this ' book of the law ' in the temple is described as a fortuitous occurrence. Tliere is no foundation for the suggestion that Hilkiah himself had written the boclk, and that the story of its finding was a fabrication. The account is straightforward and natural. It is
DEUTEliO^■O.MY
DEVOTION
603
generally agreed that tlie book may have been writton in tne reign of Manasseh, or in the early part of the reign of Josiah. Hezekiali, who had commanded all Isr. worship to be oil'ered at the sanctuary in Jerus. (2 K IS'^- 21'), commenced the policy of removin" the high-places. Manasseh's reign reversed all Uiat Hezekiali had done. It is thought probable that the comiMJsition of Dt was intended, in the days of Manasseh, to protest against the religious evils of that time, against tlie forms of Buperatition that had begun to tind their way into Judah from Babylonia, as well as against the corruptions and disorders at the high- places which presented a form of J" worship wholly alien to the teaching and spirit of the prophets of Israel.
Such a work, written in the troublous reign of Manasseh, may well have been deposited for safety within the (.recincts of the temple. The descrip- tion of its discovery leads the reader to suppose that the book was one that liad been written some considerable time before the 18th year of Josiah's reign. The character of Dt agrees exactly with the spirit of Iluldah's warning in 2 K iJi'*-*", where she speaks of the people of Judah having forsaken J", and burned incense to other gods, etc.